Delhi

StateCommission

A/175/2018

NORTHERN RAILWAY & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANKUR GOYAL - Opp.Party(s)

SANJEEV KUMAR VERMA

19 Jul 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :19.07.2019

Date of order :24.07.2019

FIRST APPEAL NO.175/2018

In the matter of:

1.      Northern Railway

Through its General Manager/

Divisional Railway Manager

     

Office at:

Northern Railway, NCDR Building,

State Entry Road, New Delhi.

 

Also at:

Baroda House, New Delhi-110001.

 

2.      IRCTC (North Zone),

Through its General Manager,

    

Office at:

Rail Yatri Niwas Building,

New Delhi.

Railway Station Complex,

Ajmeri Gate Side,

New Delhi-11002.…Appellants

 

Versus

 

1.      Ankur Goel
2.      Shikha Goel
3.      Kamlesh Goel
4.      Aarav Goel (Minor Through his

Father & Natural Gurdian Complainant no.1)

5.      N.K. Goel,

All residents of: V-19/6, DLF City,

Phase-III, Gurgaon-122002.(Haryana).……Respondents

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                      Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                           Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

 

1. The OP has come in the present appeal against order dated 28.02.18 passed by District Forum-X in CC No.425/15 vide which the complaint of the respondents was allowed and OPs/ appellants were directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to each of the complainants with 9% interest from the date of filing the complaint, for harassment, agony and physical inconvenience.
2. The facts coming rise to the complaint were that complainants were a family comprising of  senior citizen, small child and other adults. They travelled from Delhi to Amritsar on 12.09.2015 via Swarana Shatabdi Express train in 12029. Complainant no.5 is a senior citizen aged 62 years and is suffering from cardiac problem. The tickets were booked in executive class of the train. AC was not properly working from the very beginning. Complainants requested railway staff to look into the matter. No action was taken. Rather AC stopped working completely  after half an hour. Window of the AC coach was sealed with glass and no fresh air could enter into the coach. The travellers in the coach starting feeling uneasy. The complainants reached destination after completing journey of 5 hours but still the AC had not stated. The complainants made formal complaint in the complaint book of railways. Hence they filed a complaint for refund of ticket fare i.e. Rs.7,460.60 and compensation of Rs.1 lakh for each of four complainants no.1 to 4 and Rs.5 lakhs for complainant no.5.
3. OP-1/appellant filed a WS stating that the District Forum had no jurisdiction due to bar created by Section 13 and 15 Railways Claim Tribunal Act,, 1987. It also took objection regarding territorial jurisdiction, the train passed Delhi area for a very short time, E-tickets were purchased from OP-2 which was not within the administrative jurisdiction of OP-1. Complainants had a remedy with Railway Refund Department which had not been availed by them. In Shatabdi and Rajdhani trains, certain parameters  are maintained by train Supdt. and AC staff on board. Temperature in the coach was 23.9 degree centigrade against the specified temperature range of 23 degree centigrade to 25 degree centigrade.
4. After going through the material on record  the District Forum found that jurisdiction of Consumer Court was in addition to other remedies and therefore Section 13 & 15 of Railways Claim Tribunal Act, 1987 was not a bar. In doing so it placed reliance on decision of National Commission in Union of India vs. Sanjiv Dilshukrai Dave, I (2003) CPJ 196 and another decision of NC in Dy. Chief Commercial Manager, Eastern Railways vs. Dr. K.K. Sharma III (2000) CPJ 1.
5. The District Forum found  that it was not a mere question of refund of the ticket fare. Rather it involved question of awarding compensation on account of deficiency in service. So the Consumer Forum had jurisdiction.
6. Regarding  territorial jurisdiction the District Forum found that tickets were purchased in Delhi, part of cause of action arose in Delhi. Hence Delhi Forum had territorial jurisdiction. It did not agree with the plea that cause of action arose after departure of train and train crossed  Delhi area in a very short time.
7. District Forum did not agree with the plea of appellants/ OPs on merits that AC was working properly. The appellant produced two reminders in complaint book no 929 which read as below:-

“the temperature was perfectly normal coach E-2 seat-41 23.9 degree centigrade on 12.09.15. The District Forum remanded that it was signed by one Shri Ramesh Kumar but who that Shri Ramesh Kumar was is not known. It wasnot the case of the OP that Shri Ramesh Kumar was co-passenger in the said train. There was no reason why Shri Ramesh Kumar did not make remarks in the complaint book. This was more so when one of the complainant had made a complaint in the complaint book that AC was not working at all, it had been five hours in the train and all passengers were sweating. Even after continuous complaint, nothing has been done.The District Forum also found that it is difficult that a person was able to actually measure temperature of the coach as 23.9 degree centigrade. Hence it allowed the complaint and pass the impugned order.

8. I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. The counsel for the appellant relied upon decision of the NC in Union of India vs. Dilsukhrai Dave I (2003) CPJ 196. This decision has already been  discussed by the District Forum in the impugned order. In the said decision difference between ‘goods’ and ‘luggage’ was explained. It was held that luggage means baggage carrying personal belongings of passengers which could be carried by passenger himself or entrusted to Railway  Administration for carriage. As  compared to it ‘goods’ means containers, pallets or some articles of transport used to consolidate goods and animals. It appeared that ‘goods’ connotes material in the nature of merchandise and does not include personal effects. Within the meaning provisions under Section 13 (1)(a) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. The said Tribunal had jurisdiction to try disputes relating to the responsibility of Railway Administration as carrier in respect of claims of compensation for loss, destruction, damage or non delivery of animals or goods entrusted to it. Luggage which is not entrusted to Railway Administration for carriage, does not come in the jurisdiction of Railway Claims Tribunal. Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act bars the jurisdiction of the other Courts, as regards claims falling under Section 13 of the Act. Since luggage was not covered by Seciton13, Section 15 was not applicable.
9. I am unable to understand as to how this judgement helps the appellants.
10. The counsel for the appellant has also relied upon decision of the NC in Indian Railway vs. Ish Sharma . This judgement is reported in I (2018) CPJ 391 and not in I (2003) CPJ 196 as mentioned in the index of judgement supplied by counsel for appellants. That  citation is of Union of India vs. Sanjiv Dilshukrai Dave supra.  In Indian Railway vs. Ish Sharma the National Consumer Commission upheld  the order granting compensation due to non functioning of AC  and staff failing to put AC system in order. Thus this squarely covers the case of the respondents and help the respondents rather than helping the appellants.
11. It is relevant to mention here that respondent no.5/ complainant no.5 is a senior citizen and keeping in view his age and comfort, he preferred to book ticket in executive class. This shows that he was conscious and particular about comfort in travel. He wanted to avoid the sufferings. Otherwise he could have used ordinary second class coach which would  have been much cheaper and better in the sense that in ordinary coach, at least fresh air comes through  window which remain open. In the AC coach the windows remain tightly closed and no fresh air can come inside, from outside.
12. Decision in Union of India vs. Sushanta Kumar Saha I (2014) CPJ 374 NC supports the case of the respondent.  There order allowing complaint was upheld and revision petition was dismissed. SLP filed against order of NC was dismissed by Hon’ble Apex Court.
13. Appellant has placed reliance on decision of NC in Northern Railway vs. Dr. N.K. Singla II (2016) CPJ 642 in which it was held that as per Section 13 Railway Claims Tribunal Act complaint for refund of excess amount is not maintainable before Consumer For a. This judgements speak of refund of excess amount and not compensation for discomfort. I may add that Section 13 Railway Claims Tribunal Act bars jurisdiction of Civil Court or claims Commissioner appointed under Railway Act and not Consumer Foras.
14. Appellant has also placed reliance on decision of NC in R.P. No.3832/10 titled as Kachru Lal Aggarwal vs. Union of India decided on 15.11.10.  That case also pertain to refund of ticket which was not confirmed. The same is not applicable.
15. Appellant also referred to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation vs. The Consumer Protection Council I (1995) CPJ 3. That was a case under Motor Vehicle Act and it was held that LRs of deceased who died in an accident can not invoke jurisdiction under Consumer Protections Act. That has no bearing on the case in hand.
16. Reference to decision of NC in B.T.Shivaprasad vs. Vyalikaval House Building Cooperative Society Ltd. III (2013) CPJ 351 to make out that complainant is not entitled to double benefit i.e  both compensation and interest is unfounded. That was a case of refund of deposited amount on which interest as well as compensation was granted. Here the respondents are not been granted refund of their ticket.
17. The compensation awarded by the District Forum is quite moderate. It is Rs.10,000/- to each of the complainants. The interest allowed is also very reasonable being 9%.
18. For the foregoing reasons the appeal has no merits and is dismissed.
19. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
20. One copy of the order be sent to District forum for information.
21. File be consigned to record room.

 

 

(O.P. GUPTA)                                                     

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)